Paul Ryan & Rand Paul 2016?

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I saw the colder than average piece, but still am very skeptical that the world would be willing to make major changes to their lifestyles to stop the change. And Americans aren't exactly clamoring to raise gas taxes to the levels of Europe either.

And that's your fall-back position when you finally reach the point that Climate-Change is scientifically undeniable?

1) It's not happening...
2) It's happening, but it's not man-made
3) It's happening, it's man-made, but we can't do anything about it.
4) It's happening, it's man-made, we CAN do something about it, but it might raise taxes or prices, and we don't want to have to deal with it.
5) Start back at #1, and repeat as necessary....


Gotta love it.

Looks like the Dems are climate change deniers too then. What are they introducing in the Senate or the White House to reduce global warming? The only person talking about it during the election was Jill Stein. And the only Dem I hear discussing carbon credits is Al Gore.

I was kind hoping for Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman for 2016, not two more white guys.

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I saw the colder than average piece, but still am very skeptical that the world would be willing to make major changes to their lifestyles to stop the change. And Americans aren't exactly clamoring to raise gas taxes to the levels of Europe either.

And that's your fall-back position when you finally reach the point that Climate-Change is scientifically undeniable?

1) It's not happening...
2) It's happening, but it's not man-made
3) It's happening, it's man-made, but we can't do anything about it.
4) It's happening, it's man-made, we CAN do something about it, but it might raise taxes or prices, and we don't want to have to deal with it.
5) Start back at #1, and repeat as necessary....


Gotta love it.

Looks like the Dems are climate change deniers too then. What are they introducing in the Senate or the White House to reduce global warming? The only person talking about it during the election was Jill Stein. And the only Dem I hear discussing carbon credits is Al Gore.

Why didn't the GOTP introduce something?... You guys need the Dems to show you what is right?...Got nothing left but "They DIDN'T DO IT TOO"....?

The GOP admits they are currently climate change deniers. The Dems claim that climate change is man-made, and real, and something needs to be done soon. They are just unwilling to expend political capital to do it. Sins of omission?

Science Chic wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I saw the colder than average piece, but still am very skeptical that the world would be willing to make major changes to their lifestyles to stop the change. And Americans aren't exactly clamoring to raise gas taxes to the levels of Europe either.

As am I, which is why I wrote in this thread that we are f*****. The amount of effort/change that needs to be made, and the amount of fossil fuels that need to be left in the ground compared to our current levels of use, are so far apart that it would take a miracle to pull it off. I did see a piece that some Republican rep said that implementing a carbon tax wouldn't necessarily raise individuals' tax rates if it was done in conjunction with other tax cuts, but I haven't looked into that. Frankly, we aren't paying what we should be for energy and that's a harsh truth that everyone needs to come to accept, like it or not. It will be a lot less painful if we can do it before the SHTF - ie, switch to renewables before we've passed the point of no return with regards to CO2 ppm and climate change that will be locked in due to that.

The cold hard truth of the matter is that if we were "paying what we should be" for energy, the percentage of people living below the poverty line would be significantly higher than it currently is, which is already on of the highest on record. The cold hard truth of the matter is that the higher standard of living that we are accustomed to is reliant on an inexpensive and abundant form of energy. Take away the inexpensive and abundant energy and you take with it the elevated standard of living in most of the civilized world. It is fossil fuels, a dense and abundant form of energy, which fueled the rise in our standard of living. Take away inexpensive electricity, take away inexpensive fuel for our vehicles and we will quickly find ourselves living in the 1930's again - complete with iceboxes to replace refrigerators and oil lamps to replace electric ones.

Do any of you have an appreciation of the amount of energy it takes to make toast for you in the morning in that toaster? How about your microwave oven, do you know how much energy that sucker sucks down? Clothes irons? How about your electric clothes dryer? Not to mention our well pumps up here or the electric fireplaces that seem to be all the rage to keep the family room toasty warm while the kiddies do their homework, watch the television or play their video game consoles. Double the cost of that electricity, the "necessary" skyrocketing of the costs our president talked about his policies having on energy costs a little over 4 years ago, and you will plunge more people into poverty in this nation than the last recession did. Don't fool yourselves; our comfort, our very way of life as we know it, depends on inexpensive and abundant energy. If we ever reach the point where we are "paying what we should" for energy there is not a single chance that we can support 330 million people here and keep having each generation live longer than the previous one or that the planet can sustain 7+ Billion people who are all living longer than their predecessors did.

There is a reason that prior to the industrial revolution the average lifespan was significantly less than it is today. There is a reason that mortality rates have drastically decreased among the aged and the young since we started using fossil fuels and our standard of living went up along with our use of those fuels. Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

whoever is nominated, if they have to run the crank primary gamut and pander to the dumbest of us, they will lose. The candidates of the Repubs don't matter if their coalition is 50% dumber than dirt.

Science Chic wrote: As am I, which is why I wrote in this thread that we are f*****. The amount of effort/change that needs to be made, and the amount of fossil fuels that need to be left in the ground compared to our current levels of use, are so far apart that it would take a miracle to pull it off.

Actually it would probably take a fast track monumental effort to convert fossil fuels to nuclear, which has been stalled since the 70s.

Nuclear ... (or in GOTP parlance: Nu-CU-lar) ... won't begin to touch the amount of CO2 and greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere. Neither will building the boondoggle Keystone pipeline... Or drilling more in ANWAR or the Gulf, and creating eco-disasters...(and dead workers) ...